What would you want in the next update (0.90)?

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

I’ve thought about this, it solves a game problem, and would be fun.

It’s something you have to earn through science points, and once you buy the “VR Testing Lab†you get another button to leave the VAB (or SPH). Instead of taking your construction to launchpad, now you can also take it to the VR Lab.

It’s a slight simplification of the game engine, with some different rendering settings. You get a wire frame version of the model you were building, and a flat plane. But you can set the gravity, air pressure, and starting altitude. So you can see what it’s like to try to fly this vehicle in those conditions. And it doesn’t cost any funds.

So it’s kind of like an in-game “Lunar Lander†game, if you are testing a lander, or more like Battle Zone if you are trying to test a rover.

It solves a game problem in that it enables you to design things for different gravities without having to carry them there.

(and I liked Lunar Lander)

Edited December 3, 2014 by Brainlord Mesomorph

[Eskandare]

I'd like to see the two more planets, Win x64 fixed, Unity 5, bux fixes, and perhaps a simple resource system.

[DivisionByZero]

There's the Kerbal Construction Time mod that does stage recovery and allows "simulation" of craft. They should integrate that with all its options.

[TheAnimePug]

Make the game coding more efficient also an ultra low render setting pls i fan

[djnattyd]

The removal of flags from the "vessels in flight" menu

[Superfluous J]

The ability to lock my heading to prograde, retrograde, maneuver nodes, and any other navball icon.

Oh wait, no. I didn't want that. Until now. Now, I can barely play knowing executing maneuver nodes will be so much easier in the next version.

[John FX]

The ability to know the total Dv of my craft in the VAB...

EDIT :

There's the Kerbal Construction Time mod that does stage recovery and allows "simulation" of craft. They should integrate that with all its options.

And this.

[_Augustus_]

Plernets.

I want plernets before 1.2

[WuphonsReach]

Another wish list item:

- Being able to put a dot on the navball or along the navball edge at launch. Sometimes I want to climb to a specific heading on the launch and I have to jot it down on a piece of paper.

[Slam_Jones]

A small deployable "tracking beacon" that can survive high-speed impacts. It is automatically set as your vessel's target.

Imagine: orbiting around the Mun, and you spot an anomaly you want to check out. You deploy a tracking beacon to that location. It is launched from you vessel, impacts on the Mun, and activates its beacon, which will remain active for X hours. During that time, you can track it on your navball as you maneuver, making for precision landings.

Inspiration comes from the Hayabusa 2 (sp?)

[Superfluous J]

A small deployable "tracking beacon" that can survive high-speed impacts. It is automatically set as your vessel's target.

Imagine: orbiting around the Mun, and you spot an anomaly you want to check out. You deploy a tracking beacon to that location. It is launched from you vessel, impacts on the Mun, and activates its beacon, which will remain active for X hours. During that time, you can track it on your navball as you maneuver, making for precision landings.

Inspiration comes from the Hayabusa 2 (sp?)

That would be nice but I'd prefer simply being able to set a specific location on a planet's surface as a target, without any ships/parts/whatnot being there.

[FleshJeb]

A small deployable "tracking beacon" that can survive high-speed impacts. It is automatically set as your vessel's target.

Imagine: orbiting around the Mun, and you spot an anomaly you want to check out. You deploy a tracking beacon to that location. It is launched from you vessel, impacts on the Mun, and activates its beacon, which will remain active for X hours. During that time, you can track it on your navball as you maneuver, making for precision landings.

Inspiration comes from the Hayabusa 2 (sp?)

http://www.curse.com/ksp-mods/kerbal/221319-kerbin-cup

1000 m/s impact resistance. I have yet to try them, but i WILL.

[Slam_Jones]

http://www.curse.com/ksp-mods/kerbal/221319-kerbin-cup

1000 m/s impact resistance. I have yet to try them, but i WILL.

LOL launching soccer balls (or footballs I guess the rest of the world calls them) at the Mun... yeah I'm pretty sure I'm gonna try that mod

5thHorseman: that would be quite awesome as well, but might be a bit more complicated to put in the system. ah well. one day, maybe...

[flyboy67109]

It would be nice to have a go-nogo percentage before launch with various hilarious reasons not to launch. Launching when the percentage is "too low" will result in a launch failure from nothing happening when you try to launch to the thing falling apart for no reason. It would make the abort escape system a necessity when you build your rockets for even if you have a great design, if the combobulators aren't dicombobulated enough, the thing will break. Just a thought.

[Engineer of Stuff]

It would be nice to have a go-nogo percentage before launch with various hilarious reasons not to launch. Launching when the percentage is "too low" will result in a launch failure from nothing happening when you try to launch to the thing falling apart for no reason. It would make the abort escape system a necessity when you build your rockets for even if you have a great design, if the combobulators aren't dicombobulated enough, the thing will break. Just a thought.

That is actually a really good idea!

[Agost]

"Realistic" nuclear engines? I mean, using LF+OX for a nuke makes no sense, and squad knows it... can't they just switch the required fuel to LF only?

[LABHOUSE]

Female kerbals!

Better command pods, I'm sick and tired of making them my self out of Eva seats, monopropepant, electricity, and mk1 panels. (Check sig to see what I mean).

[Laie]

"Realistic" nuclear engines? I mean, using LF+OX for a nuke makes no sense, and squad knows it... can't they just switch the required fuel to LF only?

And require us to carry half-empty tanks? Or shall they create a new line of fuel-only tanks? How many and how large?

In case you find yourself with excess oxygen at some point, will you be able to get rid of it?

"Just switch the required fuel" isn't even half of it, I'm afraid. It would be a lot of work for something that doesn't really matter; from a gameplay point of view, it would only provide the player with a few more reasons why a mission can fail. Planning is difficult enough already, especially for the stock players who don't even have a delta-V calculator.

[User Unrelated]

Proper lighting of celestial bodies at a distance (so like looking at the real moon)

and reduced lag when looking at water, without making the water look like potato like I have my settings set now to run smoothly.

[Agost]

And require us to carry half-empty tanks? Or shall they create a new line of fuel-only tanks? How many and how large?

In case you find yourself with excess oxygen at some point, will you be able to get rid of it?

"Just switch the required fuel" isn't even half of it, I'm afraid. It would be a lot of work for something that doesn't really matter; from a gameplay point of view, it would only provide the player with a few more reasons why a mission can fail. Planning is difficult enough already, especially for the stock players who don't even have a delta-V calculator.

"Real" nuclear engine ( like NERVA ) were supposed to work with hydrogen. In KSP, LF is very likely to be LH2. Nuclear engines could use simple LF like jets do...

[Laie]

"Real" nuclear engine ( like NERVA ) were supposed to work with hydrogen. In KSP, LF is very likely to be LH2. Nuclear engines could use simple LF like jets do...

Yes, I'm aware of that. I tried to make you aware of the fact that implementing it wouldn't be something the devs could "just do"; and that it would make gameplay more complicated / frustrating. So, what's the benefit of more realistic-like LV-Ns that would make it worthwhile?

[LABHOUSE]

Helping people's ocd.

[Superfluous J]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I tried to make you aware of the fact that implementing it wouldn't be something the devs could "just do"; and that it would make gameplay more complicated / frustrating. So, what's the benefit of more realistic-like LV-Ns that would make it worthwhile?

They can "just do" it. All that's needed is a change to what it burns to just LF instead of LF/OX. We already have LF-only tanks only and people seem to figure them out. Maybe put a small one (half the size of the one you get when you first unlock jet engines) so you don't have to hunt around for the proper fuel tank to unlock at the same time.

I'm honestly a bit surprised that there isn't a popular mod that just makes this change. I'd not be surprised, however, if someone replies to me saying there is such a mod.

[Starwhip]

"Realistic" nuclear engines? I mean, using LF+OX for a nuke makes no sense, and squad knows it... can't they just switch the required fuel to LF only?

Couldn't you?

PART
{
name = nuclearEngine
module = Part
author = NovaSilisko

mesh = model.mu
scale = 1
rescaleFactor = 1

node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.40383, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0
node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -1.731957, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0

// ThermalAnim = overheat

fx_exhaustFlame_blue = 0.0, -1.6, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, running
fx_exhaustLight_blue = 0.0, -1.6, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, running
fx_smokeTrail_light = 0.0, -1.6, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, running

sound_vent_medium = engage
sound_rocket_hard = running
sound_vent_soft = disengage
sound_explosion_low = flameout

TechRequired = nuclearPropulsion
entryCost = 22600
cost = 8700
category = Propulsion
subcategory = 0
title = LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor
manufacturer = Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co.
description = Despite the big scary trefoil painted onto the side of this engine, its radioactive exhaust, and tendency to overheat, the LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor is harmless. Mostly.

// attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision
attachRules = 1,0,1,0,0

mass = 2.25
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.2
minimum_drag = 0.2
angularDrag = 2
crashTolerance = 12
maxTemp = 4000

// Yes, I know this is wrong. NTRs don't actually burn fuel and oxidizer, but we don't want to jump into making separate tanks for the two yet.

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleEngines
	thrustVectorTransformName = thrustTransform
	exhaustDamage = True
	ignitionThreshold = 0.1
	minThrust = 0
	maxThrust = 60
	heatProduction = 600
	fxOffset = 0, 0, 1.6
	PROPELLANT
	{
		name = LiquidFuel
        	ratio = 1
		DrawGauge = True
	}
	atmosphereCurve
 	{
   	 key = 0 800
  	 key = 1 220
 	}

}

MODULE
{
       name = ModuleJettison
       jettisonName = fairingL
       bottomNodeName = bottom
       isFairing = False
       jettisonedObjectMass = 0.1
       jettisonForce = 1
       jettisonDirection = 1 0 0

}

MODULE
{
       name = ModuleJettison
       jettisonName = fairingR
       bottomNodeName = bottom
       isFairing = False
       jettisonedObjectMass = 0.1
       jettisonForce = 1
       jettisonDirection = -1 0 0

}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleGimbal
	gimbalTransformName = thrustTransform
	gimbalRange = 1
}

MODULE
{
      name = ModuleAnimateHeat
      ThermalAnim = overheat
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleAlternator	
	RESOURCE
	{
		name = ElectricCharge
		rate = 5.0
	}
}
RESOURCE
{
	name = ElectricCharge
	amount = 0
	maxAmount = 0
  	isTweakable = false
	hideFlow = true
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleTestSubject

	// nowhere: 0, srf: 1, ocean: 2, atmo: 4, space: 8
	environments = 8

	useStaging = False
	useEvent = True
}
}

There, I did it for you.

EDIT:

Hey, look!

"Yes, I know this is wrong. NTRs don't actually burn fuel and oxidizer, but we don't want to jump into making separate tanks for the two yet."

THIS IS IN THE FILE.

So they are thinking of fixing it.

[Tw1]

One thing that would be good, wrapped in with the other editor changes, is the abilty to press Esc, and have the part you were about to move stop being moved. It would be less lag than having to use Ctrl Z.